I previously posted about an R21c, 4-cent Playing Cards, that I picked up at Chicagopex because it was pristine as far as condition and centering. Well, for the last several weeks I’ve had an eye on a comparable R17c (3-cent playing cards). Nice centering on the R17c isn’t quite as scarce as on the R21c, but they are still not very common both sound and well centered. This one, however, was also a jumbo margin example (for the type), which is fairly scarce.
It was in a lower-profile online auction, so my hope was that it wouldn’t be seen by as many people. I ended up with the stamp for about 85% of Scott after buyer premium and shipping, whereas in a high-profile auction, or in Richard or Eric’s inventory, I think it would have gone for multiples of Scott.
There was one aspect of the stamp that gave me pause though: the 4th perf along the top from the right corner is a bit short. However, that may be somewhat splitting hairs, as many would likely not even notice if I didn’t point it out. Heck, the major grading companies don’t even consider those to be faults. If it were a pulled perf, that would be different. I think they just penalize the numeric grade rather than calling the stamp faulty, a practice I disagree with, but that’s a subject for a different discussion).
For example, see this stamp that the Philatelic Foundation graded 80. While it has similarly large margins compared to my specimen, I count 5+ short perfs.
At any rate, here is the new acquisition:
P.S. This is another stamp where, if professionally graded stamps were more accepted in the revenue-collecting arena, some scoundrel would probably reperf the oversized margin at bottom, thus creating a uniformly-sized jumbo, thus deserving of a higher numeric grade. I still find it absolutely idiotic that PSE, PF, and PSAG penalize oversized jumbo margins on a perforated stamp, but not on imperfs. It boggles the mind.
And one that arrived a few days later…